Discussion: Authenticity in Reissues vs. Poor Design

Doug Tewksbury · Post by **Doug Tewksbury** » 19 Apr 2009 8:19 am

[This is a continuation of a conversation that started here: http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=156079].

Jon Light brought up the subject of the poor design of the original Fender Volume Pedal in servicing it, accessing the pedal through the submarine hatch on the bottom, which not only makes it hard to service but also probably makes it harder for Fender to build. But the reissue is authentic to the original in this sense.

The same is true for my MIJ Fender Jaguar (which I love and think sounds great), but the bridge on the reissue is the same as the terribly designed original that creates string breaks, poor intonation, buzzing, and pops the string out of the saddle groove. I replaced it with a Mustang Bridge and a Buzzstop and it was a serious improvement.

So the question is this: There's something to be said for keeping a reissue authentic, but then again, I don't really understand why it's necessary to keep a poorly designed product going (Or a poorly designed aspect of an otherwise good product). The crap bridge on the Jaguar is legendary for it's poor design - why not just let that thing end its existence?

It's like we're taught to value so-called "authenticity" over usability. As if the reissues are authentic in any sense that really matters. Other than as a marketing tool, that is.

It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, does it?

Jon Light · Post by **Jon Light** » 19 Apr 2009 8:51 am

As per my comments in the other thread, I agree. But this will degenerate into a discussion of keeping design elements that are inefficient and irrelevant to the proper and good functioning of the product vs. design aspects that are, by design or by accident, intrinsically part of what makes the item unique. For instance I would instantly prefer a 6 saddle graphite or whatever Tele bridge---it only makes sense! Except that I don't play tele and if you read the Tele thread you can see the importance that is placed on the authentic, crude hardware. For sonics, not "because of Leo". Or a Sho-Bud Permanent mechanism.
So you have to be precise in consideration of what is blind/dumb allegiance to authenticity and what is well-considered evaluation of the contribution of quirks, flukes and/or genius to beloved old things.
I, myself, wouldn't want to consider playing a Vol/Tone pedal with a wide hatch access panel. Where's the mojo?! I wasn't raised by wolves.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 19 Apr 2009 9:22 am

That was my goal with the reissue ZB's (www.retro steelguitar.com) We upgraded the mechanics for modern quick change bellcranks but kept the top half of the changer exactly the same. The result was a modern guitar with the sound and look of the original.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Apr 2009 9:25 am

Howdy, neighbor. To me, this issue does get complex.

I'm in favor of guitar companies offering detailed replicas of instruments from an earlier era. In this situation, every little thing can make a difference in the outcome. For example, if someone buys a replica of an old Strat, Tele, Les Paul, Jazzmaster, Jag, Mustang, Emmons push-pull, or whatever - consider the possibility that they really may want it exactly like the old one. What's an "improvement" to some may be a "travesty" to another.

The other thing is that there is no lack of "updated" versions of many of the models you mention. Practically every permutation of Strat, Tele, and Les Paul parameters has been made in the last 30-40 years - if one doesn't want a true knockoff of an old one, it's not hard to find one. In fact, the vast majority are modded right off the assembly line. This is also true of Jazzmasters, Jaguars, Mustangs, Fender VI basses (I have one of these, and it uses a tuneamatic bridge), and so on, although the numbers there are much much smaller because they aren't anywhere near as popular designs. But some people do love 'em, and want 'em just like the old days.

The obvious question is "Why don't all guitar players just get over it and move on from all that old stuff and do it 'better'?". To me, the reason is that - with very few exceptions - I don't think anybody has equaled, much less topped, those old guitar designs. I frequently hear younger Tele players gripe about the 2-strings-on-a-saddle bridge designs. No problem - if you want a completely and independently intonatable bridge, there are tons of models with that option, and tons of aftermarket accessories to set up any Strat, Tele, Paul and so on any way you want. In fact, the "standard" issues of all those models do just that. I think this stuff tends to change the way the guitar feels and sounds, and I like the classic tones for many applications, so I'm glad there is the option to get a reasonably authentic reproduction.

Pedal steel is quite a bit different than 6-string guitar. When Leo Fender was churning out his first Teles and Strats, and Gibson was making its first Les Pauls, there was no such thing as a pedal steel capable of changes the way we use them today, with the possible exception of Bigsby. It took decades for pedal steel to refine into the palette of great guitars that are now available. So pedal steels have evolved heavily over the last 50 years, and rightly so. I play my Zum universal tonight at Zeno's for a reason - it's a great guitar that can do stuff no 50s era pedal steel could even think about. But I'll also have a Les Paul with me is pretty hard to distinguish from a playability and tonality point of view from a late 50s Les Paul Standard.

There is yet another aspect - retro presentation. Some serious professional musicians and bands want to make a visual statement. They play music and create a stage presence that suggests an earlier era, but don't want to drag out period-correct but extremely valuable vintage gear.

There is no shortage of modern guitars, amps, pedal steels, volume pedals, and other accoutrements that have all the "upgrades" one could ask for. But I still think it's reasonable to pay some attention to replicating some of the more interesting older designs. If there was no market for it, this whole thing would rapidly dry up. If one wants a modern design, it's as easy as falling off a log (and usually cheaper) to buy them.

My opinions, of course.

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 19 Apr 2009 10:09 am

It depends on the instrument. When Gretsch changed the Country Gentleman from a single to a double cutaway, they retained the neck heel at the 14th fret. All the original double cutaway country Gents have this design flaw.

When Baldwin bought the company, they hired Duke Kramer and Chet Atkins to re-design the guitar, and they came up with any number of improvements, including moving the heel down to the 18th fret, where it belongs. (This is the version with real f holes.)

When Fred Gretsch bought the company back, he threw out the Kramer/Atkins design and went back to making them according to the old blueprints, including putting the neck heel in the wrong place.

For years, the "Country Classic" was only available that way. They only recently reissued the Kramer/Atkins version.

At one time I had an original 1967 Country Gent, and the Baldwin made Kramer/Atkins version. I sold the original and kept the Baldwin. It's a much better guitar.

But it's also not as popular as the reissues of the original. People want what they consider a "real" country gent and not a different version of it, even if the different version is better

There is a small number of people who think that the Kramer/Atkins version of the country gent is the single best guitar ever made under the name Gretsch. One of these was Art Wiggs, who'se "Wings guitar service" was the Gretsch factory authorized national service center. (I believe Mr Wiggs has passed away, but I'm not sure.)

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 19 Apr 2009 11:23 am

The same is true for my MIJ Fender Jaguar (which I love and think sounds great), but the bridge on the reissue is the same as the terribly designed original that creates string breaks, poor intonation, buzzing, and pops the string out of the saddle groove.

I have an original '62 Jaguar, and I played it for many years. I never had a problem with strings popping out of the grooves. But I guess if you thrash or windmill the guitar, or play with too much force (pulling up in the strings?), it's possible you might experience problems. As far as the intonation issues, the Jaguar bridge is fully (individually) adjustable for string height, string length, and string spacing (a REAL rarity).

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 19 Apr 2009 11:58 am

Donny Hinson wrote:

I have an original '62 Jaguar...

Wasn't the Jaguar supposed to be the top of the Fender line?

Tom Quinn · Post by **Tom Quinn** » 19 Apr 2009 1:22 pm

Yup... That was THE guitar from 63 -- 65 until Bloomfield set us all straight... -L-

Ken Pippus · Post by **Ken Pippus** » 19 Apr 2009 2:06 pm

Yup, top of the line, and a 23" scale was supposed to be the wave of the future, just like the Byrdland.

KP

Jim Robbins · Post by **Jim Robbins** » 19 Apr 2009 2:06 pm

My reissue mid 50's Tele came with alternate bridges -- a copy of the original 3 piece stock bridge and the other is adjustable for each string. I use the "original" one because it makes a big difference to the sound but it's nice to have the option.

Peter Freiberger · Post by **Peter Freiberger** » 19 Apr 2009 3:55 pm

Don't worry where the neck joins, Mike. "There's no money above the seventh fret" - Tommy Tedesco.